Latest News
ADHD and Gambling Online: Tips to Avoid Problem Gaming
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent patterns of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. While these symptoms can pose challenges in various aspects of life, one area that is often overlooked is the potential link between ADHD and gambling.
Online gambling platforms have made it easier than ever for individuals to engage in gambling activities. From online casinos to sports betting, these platforms offer a variety of gambling options that can be accessed anytime, anywhere. However, for individuals with ADHD, the easy accessibility and fast pace of online gambling can pose a significant risk.
The thrill of online gambling can be particularly enticing for individuals with ADHD. The fast-paced nature of online games and the immediate gratification of winning can trigger a rush of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward. This can momentarily help them feel more focused and the brain just wants more, leading to a cycle of gambling to chase that feeling of reward.
The Intersection of ADHD and Gambling
ADHD affects approximately 5% of children and about 2.5% of adults globally. On the other hand, problem gambling, also known as gambling addiction, affects about 1-3% of the population. Interestingly, studies have shown a higher prevalence of gambling problems among people with ADHD compared to the general population.
A study published in the Journal of Attention Disorders in 2016 found that adults with ADHD were almost three times more likely to have problem gambling behaviors. This correlation suggests that the impulsivity and risk-taking behavior often associated with ADHD may contribute to a higher propensity for gambling problems.
The Role of Impulsivity in Problem Gambling
Impulsivity, a common symptom of ADHD, is also a key factor in problem gambling. It’s the tendency to act on a whim, without thinking of the consequences: grab casino bonuses with unfavorable conditions, sign up for unlicensed casinos, take small loans to take part in gambling, etc.
A 2017 study in the journal “Psychiatry Research” found that impulsivity was a significant predictor of problem gambling among individuals with ADHD. The study also suggested that interventions targeting impulsivity could be beneficial in treating gambling problems in this population.
The Impact of ADHD Medication on Gambling
ADHD is commonly treated with stimulant medications like methylphenidate and amphetamines. While these medications can help manage ADHD symptoms, their impact on gambling behavior is less clear.
Some research suggests that ADHD medication could potentially exacerbate gambling problems. A study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology in 2015 found that a group of patients on ADHD medication had higher rates of gambling disorder. However, more research is needed in this area to draw definitive conclusions.
Recognizing Problematic Gambling Behaviors
Recognizing the signs of problematic gambling is crucial for individuals with ADHD. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), someone could have a gambling disorder if at least four of the following have been true for that person within the past year:
- A need to gamble with an increasing amount of money to get the same level of excitement.
- Feeling restless or irritable when not gambling or gambling less.
- Unable to cut back or stop gambling, even when trying.
- Thinks a lot about gambling, remembering good experiences and planning future gambling activities.
- Gambles to relieve stress, anxiety, depression, or guilt.
- Chases losses, which means gambling more after losing to try and make up for the loss.
- Lies about gambling activity to cover it up.
- Has lost a job, significant opportunity, or had a relationship end because of gambling.
- Asks other people for money to clear up financial problems caused by gambling.
Tips for Managing ADHD and Gambling
For those living with ADHD and choosing to gamble, it’s crucial to have strategies in place to manage the increased risk of developing a gambling problem. Here are some tips:
Practice taking a pause before you act: Make a plan with yourself that you will pause before starting to gamble. During this time, ask yourself questions, e.g., “How will this play out if I gamble right now? Is this the right move for me?” Building this pause-and-reflect muscle is particularly helpful with ADHD.
Set limits with your gambling: Use the tools available on many online websites to set a time or spending limit. Discuss your limits with someone supportive.
Get to know your “brand” of ADHD: Understand how ADHD affects you and your particular patterns with gambling. Figure out your risky times to gamble and how to manage them.
Seeking Help
If you or a loved one is dealing with ADHD and a gambling problem, it’s important to seek help. Medical professionals can customize a treatment plan that works for you, and a therapist can provide coping mechanisms. Many problem gamblers with ADHD have successfully controlled their gambling by planning each of their days to cut down on their impulsivity.
Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), a common treatment for gambling addiction, can be particularly effective. CBT helps individuals change unhealthy gambling behaviors and thoughts, such as the belief that gambling can solve their financial problems.
In addition to seeking help for ADHD, you can also get assistance in managing your gambling behavior from professionals. There are numerous resources available, including hotlines, support groups, and counseling services. Remember, you’re not alone, and help is available.
Use Tools and Apps
There are various tools and apps available that can help manage online gambling. These include apps that block access to gambling websites.
One of the most effective strategies for managing ADHD and online gambling is to set limits. This includes setting a budget for how much money can be spent on gambling and sticking to it. It also involves setting time limits for how long one can gamble in a single session.
Join Support Groups
Support groups can provide a safe space to share experiences and learn from others who are facing similar challenges. These groups can offer valuable insights and strategies for managing ADHD and online gambling.
Conclusion
The connection between ADHD and online gambling is a significant concern that requires awareness and proactive management. By recognizing the signs of problematic gambling, setting limits, seeking professional help, using tools and apps, and joining support groups, individuals with ADHD can navigate the world of online gambling safely and responsibly.
apuestas
Una decisión inequívoca para los mercados predictivos en Brasil
La Resolución 5.298 del Consejo Monetario Nacional de Brasil establece un límite regulatorio claro para los mercados de predicción como Polymarket y Kalshi.
En este análisis, Carlos Akira Sato examina cómo la medida refleja un cambio profundo en la arquitectura financiera de Brasil, redefiniendo qué califica como un instrumento financiero legítimo y estableciendo límites a la financiarización de eventos no económicos.
Carlos Akira Sato es cofundador de Fenynx Digital Assets y especialista en mercados regulados, infraestructura financiera y juego responsable.
En este artículo de opinión, argumenta que la Resolución 5.298 de Brasil no se trata tanto de prohibir Polymarket y Kalshi, sino de definir los límites de la próxima generación del sistema financiero.
La publicación de la Resolución nº 5.298 del Consejo Monetario Nacional establece, de forma inequívoca, un nuevo límite para la actuación de plataformas como Polymarket y Kalshi en el país. La conclusión es directa: estos modelos dejan de encontrar espacio regulatorio en Brasil. Pero la relevancia de la decisión no reside en la prohibición en sí, sino en lo que revela sobre el futuro de la arquitectura financiera.
La Resolución 5.298 no aborda explícitamente los mercados predictivos. Actúa en un plano más profundo, al redefinir qué puede considerarse un instrumento financiero legítimo.
Al exigir que los contratos estén vinculados a variables económicas con formación objetiva de precios, el regulador elimina la posibilidad de estructurar instrumentos —por sofisticados que parezcan— basados en eventos políticos, sociales o conductuales. No se trata de un ajuste periférico, sino de un reposicionamiento conceptual.
Durante años, plataformas como Polymarket y Kalshi prosperaron precisamente en la ambigüedad. No son casas de apuestas tradicionales ni encajan completamente como bolsas de derivados.
Operan en un territorio intermedio: contratos basados en probabilidades, lenguaje financiero y una promesa implícita de descubrimiento eficiente de precios sobre el futuro. Esa zona gris siempre fue su principal activo y también su mayor riesgo regulatorio. Lo que Brasil ha hecho ahora es eliminarla.
El punto más sofisticado de la resolución está en su diseño. El Consejo Monetario Nacional no atacó la tecnología, ni el formato de las plataformas, ni su ubicación. Atacó la esencia: la naturaleza del riesgo negociado.
Al hacerlo, volvió irrelevante si la operación se realiza mediante contratos bilaterales, plataformas offshore o protocolos basados en blockchain. Si el riesgo no es económico, el contrato no es admisible. Es una forma de regulación que privilegia la sustancia sobre la forma y que, por ello, tiende a ser más resiliente.
Esta decisión proyecta efectos más allá del debate sobre apuestas. Dialoga directamente con la discusión sobre tokenización y con la idea, ampliamente difundida en los últimos años, de que cualquier evento podría convertirse en un activo digital.
Brasil señala lo contrario: la innovación es bienvenida, pero no ilimitada. La tokenización encuentra legitimidad cuando está anclada en la economía real —crédito, cuentas por cobrar, activos productivos— y la pierde cuando intenta capturar comportamientos, opiniones o eventos sociales como base de negociación.
Es en este punto donde la resolución también revela una tensión institucional. El propio texto normativo asigna a la CVM la responsabilidad de emitir regulación complementaria. La elección es jurídicamente comprensible, pero institucionalmente discutible.
Si el propio diagnóstico del regulador reconoce que se trata de instrumentos híbridos —que transitan entre derivados, valores mobiliarios y estructuras de captación—, la ausencia de una iniciativa conjunta desde el inicio resulta llamativa. La opción de una regulación secuencial, con el CMN estableciendo directrices y la CVM detallando la normativa, introduce un desfase que puede reabrir temporalmente la misma zona gris que se busca cerrar.
La paradoja es evidente. La resolución es sofisticada al atacar la esencia económica de los contratos, pero fragmenta la ejecución regulatoria al distribuir competencias de forma no simultánea.
En un entorno donde la innovación financiera ocurre en la intersección de distintos regímenes —bancario, mercado de capitales y, en ciertos casos, apuestas—, la coordinación deja de ser deseable para convertirse en necesaria. La falta de sincronía puede generar interpretaciones divergentes, inseguridad jurídica y, sobre todo, oportunidades residuales de arbitraje.
Aun así, el núcleo de la decisión permanece sólido. Al restringir lo que puede considerarse un activo financiero, Brasil establece un límite silencioso pero poderoso a la financiarización de la realidad. No todo evento puede convertirse en un contrato. No toda expectativa puede convertirse en un precio. Y no todo lo que puede tokenizarse debe necesariamente negociarse.
Decir que Polymarket y Kalshi no pueden operar en Brasil es, por tanto, correcto. Pero es solo la superficie. Lo que está en juego es la definición de las fronteras de la próxima generación del sistema financiero.
Un sistema que seguirá incorporando tecnología e innovación, pero que, al menos en el caso brasileño, permanecerá anclado en la economía real. Y en ese proceso, la calidad de la coordinación entre reguladores será tan determinante como la claridad de las propias reglas.
Carlos Akira Sato – Cofundador de Fenynx Digital Assets. Especialista en mercados regulados, infraestructura financiera, gobernanza, innovación y juego responsable.
The post Una decisión inequívoca para los mercados predictivos en Brasil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Brazil
An unequivocal decision for prediction markets in Brazil
Brazil’s National Monetary Council Resolution 5.298 marks a clear regulatory boundary for prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi.
In this analysis, Carlos Akira Sato examines how the measure reflects a deeper shift in Brazil’s financial architecture, redefining what qualifies as a legitimate financial instrument and setting limits on the financialisation of non-economic events.
Carlos Akira Sato is co-founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and a specialist in regulated markets, financial infrastructure and responsible gambling.
In this op-ed, he argues that Brazil’s Resolution 5.298 is less about banning Polymarket and Kalshi than about defining the boundaries of the next generation of the financial system.
Brazil’s National Monetary Council Resolution 5.298 sets an unambiguous limit for platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi in the country. The conclusion is straightforward: these models no longer find regulatory space in Brazil. But the significance of the decision lies not in the prohibition itself, it lies in what it reveals about the future of financial architecture.
Resolution 5.298 does not explicitly address prediction markets. It operates at a deeper level, redefining what can be considered a legitimate financial instrument. By requiring that contracts be tied to economic variables with objective price formation, the regulator eliminates the possibility of structuring instruments, however sophisticated in appearance, based on political, social or behavioural events. This is not a peripheral adjustment. It is a conceptual repositioning.
For years, platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi thrived precisely on ambiguity. They are not traditional bookmakers, nor do they fit neatly as derivatives exchanges. They operate in an intermediate territory, contracts based on probabilities, financial language and an implicit promise of efficient price discovery about the future. That grey zone was always their main asset, and their greatest regulatory risk. What Brazil has now done is eliminate it.
The most sophisticated aspect of the resolution lies in its design. The CMN did not target the technology, the format of the platforms, or their location. It targeted the essence: the nature of the risk being traded. In doing so, it made irrelevant whether the operation occurs through bilateral contracts, offshore platforms or blockchain-based protocols. If the risk is not economic, the contract is not admissible. It is a form of regulation that privileges substance over form — and is, for that reason, likely to prove more resilient.
This decision projects effects well beyond the gambling debate. It speaks directly to the discussion around tokenisation and the widely held idea in recent years that any event could be converted into a digital asset. Brazil signals the opposite. Innovation is welcome, but not unlimited. Tokenisation finds legitimacy when anchored in the real economy, credit, receivables, productive assets, and loses it when it attempts to capture behaviour, opinion or social events as the basis for trading.
It is at this point that the resolution also reveals an institutional tension. The normative text itself assigns to the CVM the responsibility of issuing complementary regulation. The choice is legally understandable, but institutionally questionable.
If the regulator’s own diagnosis recognises that these are hybrid instruments, moving between derivatives, securities and fundraising structures, the absence of a joint initiative from the outset is notable. The option for sequential regulation, with the CMN setting guidelines and the CVM filling in the detail, introduces a lag that may temporarily reopen the very grey zone it intends to close.
The paradox is evident. The resolution is sophisticated in attacking the economic essence of contracts, but fragments regulatory execution by distributing competencies non-simultaneously.
In an environment where financial innovation occurs at the intersection of different regimes, banking, capital markets and, in certain cases, gambling, coordination ceases to be desirable and becomes necessary. The lack of synchrony may generate divergent interpretations, legal uncertainty and, above all, residual arbitrage opportunities.
Even so, the core of the decision remains solid. By restricting what can be considered a financial asset, Brazil establishes a silent but powerful limit on the financialisation of reality. Not every event can be turned into a contract. Not every expectation can be converted into a price. And not everything that can be tokenised should necessarily be traded.
To say that Polymarket and Kalshi cannot operate in Brazil is therefore correct, but it is only the surface. What is at stake is the definition of boundaries for the next generation of the financial system. A system that will continue to incorporate technology and innovation, but that, at least in the Brazilian case, will remain anchored in the real economy. And in that process, the quality of coordination between regulators will be as decisive as the clarity of the rules themselves.
Carlos Akira Sato is co-founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and a specialist in regulated markets, financial infrastructure and responsible gambling. In this op-ed, he argues that Brazil’s Resolution 5.298 is less about banning Polymarket and Kalshi than about defining the boundaries of the next generation of the financial system.
The post An unequivocal decision for prediction markets in Brazil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Alex Fonseca
Superbet expands football presence with naming rights deal at Bahia-based club
-
Eastern Europe6 days agoSoft2Bet launches Zinx iGaming and sportsbook brand in Romania
-
Africa6 days agoAmusnet and Goldrush Strike Strategic Partnership to Enhance SA Online Gaming
-
AGLC6 days agoInspired Entertainment Secures Alberta iGaming Supplier Registration
-
1spin4win6 days ago1spin4win partners with OdiBets to strengthen its presence in Africa
-
Africa6 days agoTaDa Strengthens its Presence in South Africa Through New Partnership with Sunbet
-
Betting and Gaming Council6 days agoBetting and Gaming Council Appoints Kane Purdy as New Chair
-
Amusnet6 days agoAmusnet Officially Enters the Philippine Market
-
Acquisitions/Merger5 days agoPetroglyph Development Group and Great Canadian Entertainment Announce the Successful Closing of the Acquisition of Chances Maple Ridge




